Professional Standards Committee
Incident 2023-40 involves an MLS® listing that was created using copyrighted content taken from a previous listing of the same property. The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondent breached Rule 10.16(a), Article 17 of the REALTOR® Code, and Article 28 of the REALTOR® Code. The matter has been sent to the Discipline Committee to propose a Consent Agreement.
Incident 2023-42 involves a property that was listed on ITSO’s MLS® System, was immediately marked sold, and was never available for showings or the submission of offers. The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondents breached Rule 2.08(d) by placing an MLS® Listing onto the MLS® System after an offer had already been accepted and the property was not immediately available for showings or the registration of offers; breached Rule 10.01(b) by causing all Content of an MLS® Listing to be published on the MLS® System when there was no valid MLS® Listing Agreement in effect between the Seller and the Listing Brokerage at the time of listing activation; and breached Article 17 of the REALTOR® Code for not complying with the Association’s rules. The Respondents accepted a Consent Agreement which included a $500 financial penalty, a written reprimand, completion of the ITSO Introduction to the MLS® Rules Course; and deletion of the MLS® Listing that was never available for cooperation. This file will be closed once all penalties have been completed.
Incident 2023-45 involves a salesperson who used MLS® Data to contact the seller of a cancelled listing which indicated “No” in the Contact After Expiry field. The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondent breached Rule 10.13 by using MLS® System data from an MLS® Listing in an unauthorized manner to send solicitation letters to the seller of the cancelled listing, and breached Article 17 of the REALTOR® Code for not complying with the Association’s rules. The Respondent chose not to file a Reply, and the matter will be sent back to the PSC for consideration.
Incident 2023-46 involves a consumer who states that false information was added to the MLS® Listing of her property. The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondent breached Rule 2.06(b) by including inaccurate information in the lot size and cooling fields of an MLS® Listing, and breached Rule 2.17(iii) by including the URL to the Respondent’s website in the Public Remarks field. The Respondent filed a Reply, and the matter will be sent back to the PSC Committee for consideration.
Incident 2023-47 involves a salesperson who booked two showings and did not attend either showing. The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondent breached Rule 3.02 by failing to attend two booked showing appointments, breached Article 17 of the REALTOR® Code for not complying with the Association’s rules, and breached Article 21 of the REALTOR® Code for unprofessional behavior for failing to cancel a booked showing appointment and failing to attend the appointments. The Respondent requested a Consent Agreement, and the matter has been sent to the Discipline Committee for consideration.
Incident 2023-48 involves a coming soon sign that was placed on a property more than 5 business days prior to the property being listed on ITSO’s MLS® System. This incident is being investigated.
Incident 2023-49 involves a listing that was conditionally sold but the listing status was not updated. This incident is being investigated.
Incident 2023-50 involves incomplete and incorrectly completed paperwork, as well as unprofessional behaviour. The Respondent was directed to file the complaint with RECO and the file is closed.
Incident 2023-51 involves a buyer agent who was concerned that the sellers of a property are not willing to accept an offer at the list price on the MLS® System. The Respondent was informed that ITSO does not have jurisdiction over the matter, and the file is closed.
Discipline Committee
Incidents 2023-11 involved inappropriate comments the Respondent made at a showing which were recorded on a doorbell camera and viewed by the homeowners. Specifically, the Respondent said to his buyer clients “you guys can be nice” but us REALTORS® “we’re the ones not supposed to be nice.” He then went on to say “and this is really bad, right… we actually look at medications, right? To see if there’s a… To see if there’s a medical problem, right? Because if somebody has a medical problem, then, urgency to sell, and it means that you can negotiate.” When the clients were laughing at these statements, the Respondent’s son then said “I’m learning from the best. It’s all those tricks of the trade though, you know.”
The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondent breached Article 21 of the REALTOR® Code by making comments that were unprofessional and unbecoming of a REALTOR® while at a property showing. A hearing was held on June 22, 2023 to resolve the matter.
The Respondent noted that he teaches negotiating tactics, and that part of negotiation is discovering motivating factors. The Respondent argued that that while this may feel devious to lay-people, it is part of standard negotiating tactics in many professions. Further, the Respondent confirmed that he was sorry that the Sellers heard the conversation, but he is not sorry for the comments as they were meant for only his clients, and his clients were pleased with the service he offered. The Respondent also referenced a warning issued by RECO regarding the circumstances.
The Panel started by considering the arguments about the admissibility of the video as evidence. The Respondent argued that the video should not be given weight by the Hearing Panel as the listing REALTOR® did not disclose the existence of the of the camera in the listing. The Panel noted that Schedule B of the ITSO PSC Policy states “The Hearing Panel is not bound by the rules of evidence or any other legal rules, but shall consider the best evidence available”. The Panel agreed with the argument made by the PSC Committee representative that the video has probative value and is the best evidence available and therefore determined it should be admissible. The Panel considered the wording of Article 21 of the REALTOR® Code, which states a REALTOR® shall not engage in conduct that is disgraceful, unprofessional or unbecoming of a REALTOR®.
The Panel noted that recording devices are everywhere and that caution must always be taken when speaking in a public setting. The Panel further noted that had the video been made public and sent to CBC Marketplace, this video would have caused damage to the reputation of the entire real estate industry. While the Panel did not believe that there was any malicious intent to the comments, the comments did cause harm to the Sellers and went beyond simple error.
The Panel concluded that the comments made by the Respondent were unprofessional, unbecoming of a REALTOR® and therefore a breach of Article 21 of the REALTOR® Code. The Respondent was ordered to complete CREA’s REALTOR® Code training course and was issued a written reprimand for the conduct. The Panel also noted that the Respondent initially stated that he was going to bring a lawyer to this hearing, and that he sent multiple emails threatening legal action regarding the incident. The Panel concluded that the Respondent’s actions precipitated the need for the Professional Standards Committee to retain legal counsel for this matter, and ordered the Respondent to pay 50% of the cost of the PSC Committee’s outside legal counsel cost in this matter.
The Respondent filed an Appeal regarding the Hearing Panel Decision, and an Appeal Hearing was held on September 29, 2023.
The Appeal Panel considered the three permitted grounds for an appeal noted in ITSO’s PSC Policy, starting with whether ITSO MLS® Rules or REALTOR® Code were interpreted and applied incorrectly.
The Appellant (formerly the Respondent) argued that the Professional Standards Committee failed to submit evidence at the initial hearing that would prove a breach of Article 21 for opening a medicine cabinet at the property in question. The Appeal Panel rejected this argument as it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what conduct was the subject of the Charge in this incident. The Appeal Panel noted that the conduct in question was the comments themselves made at the showing, not what occurred inside the property, and concluded that there was no gross error made in the interpretation or application of the REALTOR® Code by the Discipline Hearing Panel.
The second ground for an appeal that the Appeal Panel considered was whether there was a lack of procedural fairness in the matter. The Appellant argued that since he was not represented by legal counsel at the initial hearing, his submissions should be treated as those of a lay person. The Appeal Panel reviewed the Appeal Hearing Package, including all notices sent, as well as the requirements within ITSO’s PSC Policy, and noted that it was the Appellant’s decision to proceed without legal representation at the discipline hearing after stating that he would be represented by legal counsel. The Appeal Panel further noted that the Appellant was informed that legal counsel for the Professional Standards Committee would be attending the hearing and noted that the lack of legal counsel did not prevent the Appellant from fairly and fully presenting his case at the Discipline Hearing. The Panel concluded that ITSO’s PSC Policy and comprehensive procedures go above and beyond ensuring that the requirements of procedural fairness are provided to all respondents. The Appeal Panel therefore concluded that this ground of appeal was not made out.
The third ground for an appeal that the Appeal Panel considered was whether then penalties imposed by the Hearing Panel were inappropriate. The Appeal Panel reviewed the penalties applied in the discipline decision, and noted a written reprimand and the requirement to complete a no-cost online course were minor penalties for the breach of Article 21. The Appeal Panel noted that the requirement that the Appellant pay for 50% of the PSC Committee’s legal fees was tied to the Appellant’s threats of litigation against all parties, as well as the Appellant’s initial statement that he would be represented by legal counsel. The Appeal Panel concluded that the decisions by the Hearing Panel were appropriate given the evidence and circumstances, and that the third possible ground of appeal was not made out.
The Appeal Panel noted that even though the Appellant was represented at the appeal by legal counsel, there were no valid grounds for an appeal introduced. The Appeal Panel explicitly pointed out that appeal hearings are not intended to re-hear matters – arguments at appeal must be confined to the grounds for appeal. The Appeal Panel also noted that an appeal adds time and cost to this process, including volunteer time, and is an expensive process when legal counsel is retained by the PSC Committee and by the Appeal Panel. As such, the Appeal Panel concluded that the Appellant should pay for the costs of the appeal.
The Appeal Panel upheld the decision of the Discipline Hearing Panel, and in addition ordered that the $500 appeal fee be retained, and that the Appellant pay for 100% of the appeal hearing legal counsel costs for both the Appeal Panel and the Professional Standards Committee. As there are no further avenues for appeal, this file will be closed once the Appellant has complied with all requirements from the Discipline Decision and the Appeal Decision.
Arbitration Committee
Claim 2023-02 involves a commission dispute between two brokerages that belong to two different ITSO Member Associations. Both Member Associations are delegating enforcement of the Arbitration Policy to ITSO. The Claim was provided to the Respondent and a Response has been filed. Mediation was held in October, a settlement agreement was signed, and the file is closed.
Claim 2023-04 involves a commission dispute between two brokerages that belong to the same ITSO Member Association, which delegates enforcement of the Arbitration Policy to ITSO. The Claim was provided to the Respondent and a Response has been filed. Mediation was unsuccessful and a hearing will be scheduled in early 2024.
Incident 2023-40 involves an MLS® listing that was created using copyrighted content taken from a previous listing of the same property. The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondent breached Rule 10.16(a), Article 17 of the REALTOR® Code, and Article 28 of the REALTOR® Code. The matter has been sent to the Discipline Committee to propose a Consent Agreement.
Incident 2023-42 involves a property that was listed on ITSO’s MLS® System, was immediately marked sold, and was never available for showings or the submission of offers. The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondents breached Rule 2.08(d) by placing an MLS® Listing onto the MLS® System after an offer had already been accepted and the property was not immediately available for showings or the registration of offers; breached Rule 10.01(b) by causing all Content of an MLS® Listing to be published on the MLS® System when there was no valid MLS® Listing Agreement in effect between the Seller and the Listing Brokerage at the time of listing activation; and breached Article 17 of the REALTOR® Code for not complying with the Association’s rules. The Respondents accepted a Consent Agreement which included a $500 financial penalty, a written reprimand, completion of the ITSO Introduction to the MLS® Rules Course; and deletion of the MLS® Listing that was never available for cooperation. This file will be closed once all penalties have been completed.
Incident 2023-45 involves a salesperson who used MLS® Data to contact the seller of a cancelled listing which indicated “No” in the Contact After Expiry field. The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondent breached Rule 10.13 by using MLS® System data from an MLS® Listing in an unauthorized manner to send solicitation letters to the seller of the cancelled listing, and breached Article 17 of the REALTOR® Code for not complying with the Association’s rules. The Respondent chose not to file a Reply, and the matter will be sent back to the PSC for consideration.
Incident 2023-46 involves a consumer who states that false information was added to the MLS® Listing of her property. The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondent breached Rule 2.06(b) by including inaccurate information in the lot size and cooling fields of an MLS® Listing, and breached Rule 2.17(iii) by including the URL to the Respondent’s website in the Public Remarks field. The Respondent filed a Reply, and the matter will be sent back to the PSC Committee for consideration.
Incident 2023-47 involves a salesperson who booked two showings and did not attend either showing. The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondent breached Rule 3.02 by failing to attend two booked showing appointments, breached Article 17 of the REALTOR® Code for not complying with the Association’s rules, and breached Article 21 of the REALTOR® Code for unprofessional behavior for failing to cancel a booked showing appointment and failing to attend the appointments. The Respondent requested a Consent Agreement, and the matter has been sent to the Discipline Committee for consideration.
Incident 2023-48 involves a coming soon sign that was placed on a property more than 5 business days prior to the property being listed on ITSO’s MLS® System. This incident is being investigated.
Incident 2023-49 involves a listing that was conditionally sold but the listing status was not updated. This incident is being investigated.
Incident 2023-50 involves incomplete and incorrectly completed paperwork, as well as unprofessional behaviour. The Respondent was directed to file the complaint with RECO and the file is closed.
Incident 2023-51 involves a buyer agent who was concerned that the sellers of a property are not willing to accept an offer at the list price on the MLS® System. The Respondent was informed that ITSO does not have jurisdiction over the matter, and the file is closed.
Discipline Committee
Incidents 2023-11 involved inappropriate comments the Respondent made at a showing which were recorded on a doorbell camera and viewed by the homeowners. Specifically, the Respondent said to his buyer clients “you guys can be nice” but us REALTORS® “we’re the ones not supposed to be nice.” He then went on to say “and this is really bad, right… we actually look at medications, right? To see if there’s a… To see if there’s a medical problem, right? Because if somebody has a medical problem, then, urgency to sell, and it means that you can negotiate.” When the clients were laughing at these statements, the Respondent’s son then said “I’m learning from the best. It’s all those tricks of the trade though, you know.”
The PSC Committee laid charges alleging that the Respondent breached Article 21 of the REALTOR® Code by making comments that were unprofessional and unbecoming of a REALTOR® while at a property showing. A hearing was held on June 22, 2023 to resolve the matter.
The Respondent noted that he teaches negotiating tactics, and that part of negotiation is discovering motivating factors. The Respondent argued that that while this may feel devious to lay-people, it is part of standard negotiating tactics in many professions. Further, the Respondent confirmed that he was sorry that the Sellers heard the conversation, but he is not sorry for the comments as they were meant for only his clients, and his clients were pleased with the service he offered. The Respondent also referenced a warning issued by RECO regarding the circumstances.
The Panel started by considering the arguments about the admissibility of the video as evidence. The Respondent argued that the video should not be given weight by the Hearing Panel as the listing REALTOR® did not disclose the existence of the of the camera in the listing. The Panel noted that Schedule B of the ITSO PSC Policy states “The Hearing Panel is not bound by the rules of evidence or any other legal rules, but shall consider the best evidence available”. The Panel agreed with the argument made by the PSC Committee representative that the video has probative value and is the best evidence available and therefore determined it should be admissible. The Panel considered the wording of Article 21 of the REALTOR® Code, which states a REALTOR® shall not engage in conduct that is disgraceful, unprofessional or unbecoming of a REALTOR®.
The Panel noted that recording devices are everywhere and that caution must always be taken when speaking in a public setting. The Panel further noted that had the video been made public and sent to CBC Marketplace, this video would have caused damage to the reputation of the entire real estate industry. While the Panel did not believe that there was any malicious intent to the comments, the comments did cause harm to the Sellers and went beyond simple error.
The Panel concluded that the comments made by the Respondent were unprofessional, unbecoming of a REALTOR® and therefore a breach of Article 21 of the REALTOR® Code. The Respondent was ordered to complete CREA’s REALTOR® Code training course and was issued a written reprimand for the conduct. The Panel also noted that the Respondent initially stated that he was going to bring a lawyer to this hearing, and that he sent multiple emails threatening legal action regarding the incident. The Panel concluded that the Respondent’s actions precipitated the need for the Professional Standards Committee to retain legal counsel for this matter, and ordered the Respondent to pay 50% of the cost of the PSC Committee’s outside legal counsel cost in this matter.
The Respondent filed an Appeal regarding the Hearing Panel Decision, and an Appeal Hearing was held on September 29, 2023.
The Appeal Panel considered the three permitted grounds for an appeal noted in ITSO’s PSC Policy, starting with whether ITSO MLS® Rules or REALTOR® Code were interpreted and applied incorrectly.
The Appellant (formerly the Respondent) argued that the Professional Standards Committee failed to submit evidence at the initial hearing that would prove a breach of Article 21 for opening a medicine cabinet at the property in question. The Appeal Panel rejected this argument as it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what conduct was the subject of the Charge in this incident. The Appeal Panel noted that the conduct in question was the comments themselves made at the showing, not what occurred inside the property, and concluded that there was no gross error made in the interpretation or application of the REALTOR® Code by the Discipline Hearing Panel.
The second ground for an appeal that the Appeal Panel considered was whether there was a lack of procedural fairness in the matter. The Appellant argued that since he was not represented by legal counsel at the initial hearing, his submissions should be treated as those of a lay person. The Appeal Panel reviewed the Appeal Hearing Package, including all notices sent, as well as the requirements within ITSO’s PSC Policy, and noted that it was the Appellant’s decision to proceed without legal representation at the discipline hearing after stating that he would be represented by legal counsel. The Appeal Panel further noted that the Appellant was informed that legal counsel for the Professional Standards Committee would be attending the hearing and noted that the lack of legal counsel did not prevent the Appellant from fairly and fully presenting his case at the Discipline Hearing. The Panel concluded that ITSO’s PSC Policy and comprehensive procedures go above and beyond ensuring that the requirements of procedural fairness are provided to all respondents. The Appeal Panel therefore concluded that this ground of appeal was not made out.
The third ground for an appeal that the Appeal Panel considered was whether then penalties imposed by the Hearing Panel were inappropriate. The Appeal Panel reviewed the penalties applied in the discipline decision, and noted a written reprimand and the requirement to complete a no-cost online course were minor penalties for the breach of Article 21. The Appeal Panel noted that the requirement that the Appellant pay for 50% of the PSC Committee’s legal fees was tied to the Appellant’s threats of litigation against all parties, as well as the Appellant’s initial statement that he would be represented by legal counsel. The Appeal Panel concluded that the decisions by the Hearing Panel were appropriate given the evidence and circumstances, and that the third possible ground of appeal was not made out.
The Appeal Panel noted that even though the Appellant was represented at the appeal by legal counsel, there were no valid grounds for an appeal introduced. The Appeal Panel explicitly pointed out that appeal hearings are not intended to re-hear matters – arguments at appeal must be confined to the grounds for appeal. The Appeal Panel also noted that an appeal adds time and cost to this process, including volunteer time, and is an expensive process when legal counsel is retained by the PSC Committee and by the Appeal Panel. As such, the Appeal Panel concluded that the Appellant should pay for the costs of the appeal.
The Appeal Panel upheld the decision of the Discipline Hearing Panel, and in addition ordered that the $500 appeal fee be retained, and that the Appellant pay for 100% of the appeal hearing legal counsel costs for both the Appeal Panel and the Professional Standards Committee. As there are no further avenues for appeal, this file will be closed once the Appellant has complied with all requirements from the Discipline Decision and the Appeal Decision.
Arbitration Committee
Claim 2023-02 involves a commission dispute between two brokerages that belong to two different ITSO Member Associations. Both Member Associations are delegating enforcement of the Arbitration Policy to ITSO. The Claim was provided to the Respondent and a Response has been filed. Mediation was held in October, a settlement agreement was signed, and the file is closed.
Claim 2023-04 involves a commission dispute between two brokerages that belong to the same ITSO Member Association, which delegates enforcement of the Arbitration Policy to ITSO. The Claim was provided to the Respondent and a Response has been filed. Mediation was unsuccessful and a hearing will be scheduled in early 2024.